Ten Key Qualities of Law Enforcement Leaders Essay

Ten Key Qualities of Law Enforcement Leaders - Essay Example Most people who call themselves leaders act as bosses rather than being leaders. A boss will give orders while a true leader gives instructions to a task and shows the way to do it. Effective leadership ought to be coupled with good planning and participation. A good leader should not only direct the task but should go further to participating in the activity. Leaders should understand that leadership is not all about instilling fear to the subjects but rather good leadership should instill enthusiasm. Indeed, effective Leadership must produce motivation to the subjects. Gonzalez indicates that leaders are gifted to make enthusiasm and real pride in accomplishing a purpose. In adding up to inspiration, some make regular references to the care and wellbeing of subordinates. Actually, excellent leaders watch over their workers. Effective leaders learn to set an example; they own an indisputable sympathy for others; are not afraid to admit accountability; and mind about the people they lead. True leaders readily take responsibility for all their actions and never fear owning up their deeds. Responsibility also means taking risks of everything that they do. Fundamentally, effective leaders are quick to accept the mistakes that they make in their course of actions. Leaders should embrace the idea of accountability and accept penalties whenever they fail and are held answerable. Additionally, a sense of certainty pervades the thoughts of effective leaders. This enables them to get things through and to shun from fear of making mistakes. One fact that effe ctive leaders accept is that mistakes are a component of the job they do. In effect, leaders usually prevail against the odds, regardless of having numerous impediments (Gonzalez 2). Good leaders have a high self worth and self esteem. These help them to motivate the people they lead because they (subjects) always look upon their leader.

Gun control is it better to make more stringent laws or ban them all Research Paper

Gun control is it better to make more stringent laws or ban them all together - Research Paper Example These incidents horrified not only the family of the victims but a majority of the Americans. In 2000 alone, about 52,447 people died deliberately of gunshot wounds in the United States (Wikipedia, 2011). The country rank first of the world’s 36 richest nation to have gun related deaths. Such incidences and information alerted the politicians, experts and law makers to revive the gun ban in an effort to prevent similar cases to happen and to reduce prevalence of robbery, drug dealings and other forms of crime. The proposal however, was not welcome by everyone. Majority pointed that gun ban is a violation of the second amendment and is not a solution to the problem because guns do not kill but people who has guns do. Law makers should create a tougher gun control laws and its implementation be strictly observed for individuals and manufacturers to be more responsible. Discussion Some sectors of the society claim that gun ban reduces homicide. To them, they believe that countrie s banning guns have lower rate of crimes like homicide. Premeditated crimes would be limited to an extent. Their challenge proves to be true. A study in 1991 found out that a District of Columbia showed a twenty five percent (25%) drop in their homicide cases owing to the implementation of the gun ban. In the same year, Baltimore also showed a positive result with also a decline however the rate of percentage was not revealed. This is in contrast with Columbia’s neighboring States like Marlyland and Virginia with no gun ban showing no decline in their homicide cases (Schwartz, 2008). The study further mentioned that suicide rates by fire arms likewise have declined by twenty three percent (23%) in Columbia just the same. Another important finding was that of the 1999 study that shows that there was a reduction of violent juvenile crime involving minors of 10 to 17 years old from 1994 to 1998 after the implementation of the Brady law and assault weapon ban (La Rosa, 2002). The above affirmation was refuted by the supporters of pro- gun advocates. Pro-gun groups believe that homicide and the absence of guns are not related to the decline in the incidences of homicide. They pointed out the situation of some parts of Europe whose citizens are allowed to own a gun yet have lesser rate of homicide cases. Switzerland who issues a firearm to every law abiding male citizen for the purpose of mandatory militia obligation remains to have a low rate of homicide. The same applies to Austria, Belgium, and Germany with low homicide rates and yet allowed to own a gun. They further pointed out that Western Europe’s low rate of homicide has existed long before gun ban has been adopted (Kates, 2010). The finding above corroborates with the idea of Mauser (2001) where he argued that if gun ban decreases the prevalence of homicide is true, rural regions in the United States and Canada where firearms are observed to be plenty should have the highest rate of homicide. In fact, Mauser noted that urban regions where fewer firearms are found have the same low rate of homicide cases with that of the rural areas where guns are bountiful. Mauser further added that individuals who are most armed with guns are hunters who are not a threat to the society and that they only use their guns for hunting purposes and has nothing to do with homicide. La Rosa in his article (2002) also provided information that even in countries with strict gun control laws has incidences of shootings. He